Modeling Pupil and Teacher Interactions as they Pursue Instructional Goals in Mathematics Teaching: An Alternative to VAM



Making meaningful comparisons of teacher performance across countries is very challenging because countries have somewhat different educational goals and curriculum structures; the characteristics of the pupil populations across countries differ along numerous dimensions; and the type of workforce that is needed to support the economy of the country is conceived differently across countries. Because of these cross-country differences, the currently popular ways of looking at teacher effectiveness are not comparable across countries. To make meaningful comparisons of teacher effectiveness, it is necessary to have a way to anchor all of the results to a common cross-country scale of effectiveness. The FIRSTMATH study provides an approach for a fair assessment of teacher effectiveness by considering the characteristics of the pupils who are assigned to teachers. This chapter presents an approach to examine teacher effectiveness in relation to pupil performance using a generalization of IRT theory to understand the classroom contexts that teachers face as they begin to teach.


  1. de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  2. Harris, D. N. (2011). Value-added measures in education: What every educator should know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  3. Houts, C. R., & Cai, L. (2016). flexMIRT user’s manual: Flexible multilevel multidimensional item analysis and test scoring (version 3.5). Chapel Hill, NC: Vector Psychometric Group.Google Scholar
  4. International Labour Office. (2010). A skilled workforce for strong, sustainable and balanced growth: A G20 training strategy.
  5. Kilbride, T. (2018). Contributions of student-response theory to evaluation systems: Three essays extending item response theory procedures to measures of teacher performance. Dissertation proposal, Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
  6. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics. Boston, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
  7. Niss, M. (1996). Goals of mathematic teaching. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education. Kluwer international handbooks of education, vol 4 (pp. 49–97). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results in focus
  9. Reckase, M. D., & Martineau, J. A. (2015). The evaluation of teachers and schools using the educator response function. In R. W. Lissitz & H. Jiao (Eds.), Value-added modeling and growth modeling with particular applications to teacher and school effectiveness (pp. 219–235). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Tatto, M. (Ed.). (2013). The Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries – technical report. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Educational PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.College of EducationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.Center for Science, Mathematics & Computer EducationUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  5. 5.Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, the University of SofiaInstitute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria
  6. 6.Oakland Community CollegeEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations